Mentoring Experiences and Publication Productivity among Early Career Biomedical Investigators and Trainees

Objective: To identify which mentoring domains influence publication productivity among early career researchers and trainees and whether publication productivity differs between underrepresented minority (URM) and well-represented groups (WRGs). The mentoring aspects that promote publication productivity remain unclear. Advancing health equity requires a diverse workforce, yet URM trainees are less likely to publish and URM investigators are less likely to obtain federal research grants, relative to WRG counterparts.Participants: Early career biomedical investigators and trainees from the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), N=115.Methods: A mentoring-focused online follow-up survey was administered to respondents of the NRMN Annual Survey who self-identified as mentees. Publications were identified from a public database and validated with participant CV data. Bivariate and multivariate analyses tested the associations of publication productivity with mentoring domains.Results: URM investigators and trainees had fewer publications (M = 7.3) than their WRG counterparts (M = 13.8). Controlling for career stage and social characteristics, those who worked on funded projects, and received grant-writing or research mentorship, had a higher probability of any publications. Controlling for URM status, gender, and career stage, mentorship on grant-writing and funding was positively associated with publication count (IRR=1.72). Holding career stage, gender, and mentoring experiences constant, WRG investigators and trainees had more publications than their URM counterparts (IRR=1.66).Conclusions: Grant-writing mentorship is particularly important for publication productivity. Future research should investigate whether grant-writing mentorship differentially impacts URM and WRG investigators and should investigate how and why grant-writing mentorship fosters increased publication productivity. Ethn Dis. 2021;31(2):273-282; doi:10.18865/ed.31.2.273